Jump to content

Recommended Posts

15 posts removed on why you all love each other so much, and trying to explain to each other why you do so. 

  • Haha 3

"When in deadly danger, when beset by doubt; run in little circles, wave your arms and shout"

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 7.5k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Well... after 66 days in ICU my sister's fella who was described as being as near to death as can be without dying.... has made it. He's home. Half the fella he was.... and the virus has ravaged his l

I'm not putting up with this goading of a volunteer moderator who does a sterling job on my behalf generally on here, but especially recently when I was ill for almost a month with what might well hav

Well my sister's fella is making very small steps in the right direction. From being described as as near to death without being dead, he's now sat up, off dialysis and yesterday was breathing on

Posted Images

9 hours ago, JohnM said:

No, they are not all angels. In such a huge organisation, there are bound to be some with lower standards than everyone else. 

However, even the severest critic would acknowledge the anxiety and fear that many NHS personel must experience when there are so many conflicting and negative stories in the news. Some media outlets seem to delight in digging up doom mongering specialists, or painting things as dark as possible. Look at the delight at the BBC as it published the lie that an NHS director had rung the BBC to get the phone number of Barbour. 

Clap the NHS? It's not a legal requirement yet, is it? I don't join in, preferring instead to do my best to ensure that by my behaviour I do not add to the NHS workload. 

Yes at the end of this, unless anyone knows better, the majority of state sector employees will still be paid, still get their pensions etc,  and indeed I'm advising my youngest grand-children to make sure that they get state sector jobs when they grow up. I have no doubt though that many non-NHS bureaucrats are putting the hours to handle the current heavy workload. 

As one who has on a few occasions kept away from the forums, mainly the political ones, I'd advise you to stay and fight. This is a predominantly left of centre set of forums, with what seems to be a significant proportion of posters being in the state sector and posters  need to be challenged. 

There are, of course a number of left of centre posters who make valuable contributions to discussions.

The rest I have on ignore. 

Did you seriously encourage BryanC to stay? I skim read and gave your post a like. 

I'll be taking it back promptly ?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Dave T said:

Did you seriously encourage BryanC to stay? I skim read and gave your post a like. 

I'll be taking it back promptly ?

It seems like the call for political posts to go on the political forum changes depending on the politics involved.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Dave T said:

Did you seriously encourage BryanC to stay? I skim read and gave your post a like. 

I'll be taking it back promptly ?

I think you might be mistaking me for someone who cares about likes.  If we start advocating censorship of views we don't not like or do nor agree with, then the mods will be out of a job. 

Four legs good - two legs bad

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, JohnM said:

I think you might be mistaking me for someone who cares about likes.  If we start advocating censorship of views we don't not like or do nor agree with, then the mods will be out of a job. 

Jeez John, lighten up. 

And nobody was censored. 

Edited by Dave T
  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, gingerjon said:

. But it doesn't make the issue go away.

Like you, I've posted here rather than on the politics sub forum as this concerns facts not fiction. 

You are correct. The issue of the BBC's unbalanced reporting and promotion of fake news remains. Despite the excellence of  Victoria Derbyshire and one or two others, the partiality of most of their reporters remains blindingly obvious.

 

Four legs good - two legs bad

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Northern Eel said:

I'm thinking:

  • Identification of past sufferers for the purpose of further research
  • Identification of past sufferers in front-line services who have shown only mild symptoms and may be less prone to the virus should they return to work
  • The ability to use such data to track spread and virulence in certain geographic areas
  • Extend research around the effects of the virus on children, particularly those who have shown no, or very low level symptoms

There would have have be a clear caveat attached to some of the outcomes of this work though.

My thoughts (with little scientific knowledge so feel free to correct me) is that Covid19 is caused by a coronavirus as are 25% of the cases of common cold

Over the past 50 years £Billions have been spent unsuccessfully searching for a cure for the common cold

Influenza is not a coronavirus BUT whilst we do have vaccines they are not 100% effective and they need continual development as there are various trains of Flu which have different levels of both transmittability and severity

I suspect Covid19 is here to stay, it wont wipe out humanity as the fact it does not kill all it infects means there is some form of natural resistance in some people (whether that is environmental, genetic in the virus or genetic in the humans involved is not yet resolved) so i think we will see repeated bouts of Covid19, hopefully not more often that yearly but as new strains evolve there will be new peaks and some strains may be more virulent and or more deadly and some less so - if we are lucky this first infection wave is the most severe and future strains/infection waves will be like after shocks, but i wouldnt bet me life on it

An idea of the true spread/infection rate will allow better modelling, better modelling will allow a scientific  consensus on how it spreads and how/why if effects different people differently and the risk factors - when we have that we can develop mitigation strategies. If we know certain factors make a person a super carrier then we wont be able to put people in that category into positions where they can contract it easily (like front line medics) equally if we find certain characteristics make a person oth unlikely to display symptoms and not a good vector then they will be in huge demand - both to do those jobs and also as research subjects to see if the reasons they are like that can be made into a treatment

Life will return to closer to normal but whilst we have spent a decade being told super antibiotic resistance will lead to the end of modern life/medical treatment I think  it is looking more likely it is this zoonotic disease which changes things - and unlike bacteria virii are harder to fight / mitigate

  • Like 2
  • Sad 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, gingerjon said:

Anyway, I'll stick this here because it relates to the virus situation although, as with all these things, a political edge.

WHO point out that, firstly, there's no evidence that people who have recovered from the virus are immune to it, and, secondly, the bought and paid for UK tests are probably worthless: https://news.sky.com/story/coronavirus-no-evidence-that-covid-19-survivors-have-immunity-who-warns-11975011?dcmp=snt-sf-twitter

Today, we have always like the WHO.

But that thing about not guaranteeing immunity does now seem to becoming a persistent problem.

yep, well every time Whitty speaks on this he always says that can't be sure about immunity... it too early to say,  He caveats that it would be expected to give immunity but much too early to say on covid plus their has been some cases in which it has returned to individual. Though he says this may be because it never went away from the individual or the tests wee not accurate.

My point being he is always transparent, precise and specific... 

He has said it a number of times as has Vallance .

They are both polite but have been very specific on uncertainties. - they must get fed up with questions of certainty from journalist. For example yesterday Vallance did seem a little critical in his tone of a question about possibility of vaccine and that we should ensure we as in UK keep it and the implied sod the rest of world.

 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I like others are in a High Risk Group. Whether its the Cancer etc that kills us or the Virus, is not really that important to me. Each person cant go around living in a bubble and trying to avoid death. Life is life & Death is Death-you sometimes cant avoid it.

What we can do is wash hands, avoid as much contact with others etc and maybe look to arrange Family members to do shopping etc for us. Each person is responsible for what he does and how he conducts himself.

Sadly we have a number of idiots even within our Family/Friends Group at times. Its probably best to avoid these people as best as possible if they are still failing to stay home, take precautions and possibly putting us & others at risk with their conduct. Thats just my opinion!

The Virus in its various forms is here to stay and will not just disappear over Summer or even in a Couple of years in my opinion. Life needs to go go on but we also have to accept the changes etc that life will be in future for all of us-young & old

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, redjonn said:

For example yesterday Vallance did seem a little critical in his tone of a question about possibility of vaccine and that we should ensure we as in UK keep it and the implied sod the rest of world.

 

The question implied we should sod the rest of the world or his answer did?

Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life. (Terry Pratchett)

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, gingerjon said:

The question implied we should sod the rest of the world or his answer did?

the journalist question... not vallance he said the vaccine could be from anywhere in the world and hence needed to support all efforts... the journalist was referring to a UK potential vaccine (Oxford)...vallance  said their was a number of potential but often early enthusiasms doesn't lead to success.

sorry not to be clear - the journalist implied

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

The other thing that people are missing is that the death count is only the immediate impact. The hospitalisation count is roughly four times that of the death count. Half of those hospitalised will come out with significant long term illnesses. Most of the others will be ill for ages to come. Even of those not hospitalised, a good few will not be right for a long time with fatigue and other illnesses. 

This isn’t something we can just bash through and hope it goes away. 

"When in deadly danger, when beset by doubt; run in little circles, wave your arms and shout"

Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, redjonn said:

the journalist question... not vallance he said the vaccine could be from anywhere in the world and hence needed to support all efforts... the journalist was referring to a UK potential vaccine (Oxford)...vallance  said their was a number of potential but often early enthusiasms doesn't lead to success.

sorry not to be clear - the journalist implied

Thanks. Does sound like a properly stupid question but then I have nothing but contempt for most of the political hacks doing the questioning. Not because the government don’t need to be questioned but because the lobby/Westminster journos are again the wrong people to do it.

Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life. (Terry Pratchett)

Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, ckn said:

The other thing that people are missing is that the death count is only the immediate impact. The hospitalisation count is roughly four times that of the death count. Half of those hospitalised will come out with significant long term illnesses. Most of the others will be ill for ages to come. Even of those not hospitalised, a good few will not be right for a long time with fatigue and other illnesses. 

This isn’t something we can just bash through and hope it goes away. 

As is being shown by our Prime Minister. When did he first show symptoms? That’s a long time ill.

(And not making any snide point about him, he’s just a good example everyone knows about)

Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life. (Terry Pratchett)

Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, ckn said:

The other thing that people are missing is that the death count is only the immediate impact. The hospitalisation count is roughly four times that of the death count. Half of those hospitalised will come out with significant long term illnesses. Most of the others will be ill for ages to come. Even of those not hospitalised, a good few will not be right for a long time with fatigue and other illnesses. 

This isn’t something we can just bash through and hope it goes away. 

Yes , which again opens up , or in fact shuts it down , the discussions on Sport returning , this virus could quite easily end careers if it reacts badly on any pro sportsperson 

Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

Thanks. Does sound like a properly stupid question but then I have nothing but contempt for most of the political hacks doing the questioning. Not because the government don’t need to be questioned but because the lobby/Westminster journos are again the wrong people to do it.

don't know about whom are the right one's to ask questions... the problem is being objective in questioning rather than a)wanting your snippet for follow on news even if question has already been asked or b)just looking for a sensational headline.

Anyway one of us can identify where potential pinch points are or where going to occur. If the questions came early as distinct from when a potential problem hits then I would think at least they thought through the huge task to be undertaken - rather then them not having the capability to see where potential problems would occur.

Just an example and not extensive - Whether that be logistical issues, which even expert army chaps are struggling with or just purchasing, etc.. hence how going to handle such and if problem worldwide what doing to produce in quantities here. Plus say what contingencies if unable to get hold of something of worldwide shortages. 

That is a thoughtful constructive question that check-points plan or plans in place. As always going to have individual issue or problems the key being having, strategy,  plan and execution.  Then trying to correct as experience throws up issue's.    Otherwise its just simplistic reactive noise that one switches off from..  

Edited by redjonn
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

Thanks. Does sound like a properly stupid question but then I have nothing but contempt for most of the political hacks doing the questioning. Not because the government don’t need to be questioned but because the lobby/Westminster journos are again the wrong people to do it.

The question was framed along the lines of 'how are the government going to ensure that it is at the front of the queue to buy the 1 million vaccines that are being produced in advance of official test results, such is the confidence of the university producing them'.

Vallance replied along the lines of there being around 40 similar vaccine programmes running around the world, only 2 currently in clinical trials and a very low success rate typical of such trials.  We should not get ahead of ourselves and think the solution is going to be here within a couple of weeks. He has said similar until he is blue in the face. 

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, gingerjon said:

I never claim to be anything but shallow.

A week ago (roughly) you gave the lockdown two weeks.

Still think that?

Yup, should have been. Impose restrictions on the at-risk; leave the rest of us to take our chances.

  • Sad 1

Under Scrutiny by the Right-On Thought Police

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.




×
×
  • Create New...